tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post173415325688559844..comments2024-03-19T02:31:02.140-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: The Economics of EldoradoUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-83072751451895533182011-07-15T10:13:49.430-07:002011-07-15T10:13:49.430-07:00Steve Sailer's comments that we should not let...Steve Sailer's comments that we should not let these people steal from the treasury,etc. is a point of vigilance we owe across the board in what is left of America.<br />And his emphasis upon use of RICO<br /> is also due across the board (particularly vis a vis $PLC !!). The wrinkle in <br />his commentary is that by all indications there was from day one no governmental reluctance at any level to "throw the book" at this<br />commune. The State spent millions to put this group through the meat grinder of child well-being policing and of prosecution. The results do not bear out the suspicions listed in Steve's template here. In fact, the results reported from this expenditure of millions of dollars are probably more meagre than what we might expect if the same governmental meat grinder had been visited upon any randomly selected group of Texans having demographic similarity to this radical Morman commune. Where, then, in retrospect, is the EVIDENCE that these people were "infesting" Texas in order to milk the treasury to any extent beyond what most Texans are willing to do????Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-50303451465455775292008-06-03T22:22:00.000-07:002008-06-03T22:22:00.000-07:00Steve, You need to update your attitude towards ch...Steve, You need to update your attitude towards children. Children, specifically European children, are today a very scarce resource, and many countries are ready to pay for them. Sweden, France, etc. pay and subsidize mothers having children. Mormons produce children at a very low cost to society. You should be happy having them.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05676167615981895061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-68847418404211985102008-04-30T17:04:00.000-07:002008-04-30T17:04:00.000-07:00Oops, I forgot to pare away the previous posts (I ...Oops, I forgot to pare away the previous posts (I save my posts before submitting so I can repost if they get lost, or edit and repost if they get rejected); just scroll down to 3, plenty of hot air after that as it is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-81073387086758703052008-04-29T15:18:00.000-07:002008-04-29T15:18:00.000-07:00(Steve, long post to review. If memory serves I d...(Steve, long post to review. If memory serves I didn't get too rough and tumble, so you might want to approve now and review at your leisure)<BR/><BR/><I>Apparently not if you read the corresponding article to this thread.</I><BR/><BR/>What, the link titled "Welfare Fraud"? I just glanced at the headlines but it looks parochial.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.success-and-culture.net/articles/recip.shtml" REL="nofollow">The Recipient Class</A><BR/><BR/>(It doesn't take a genius to figure out there's a white-to-black wealth transfer going on via welfare when blacks generate almost as many recipients as whites with roughly 1/6th the population)<BR/><BR/><I>40 years of "affirmative action" to counteract 300 of "negative action" would be considered a "wealth transfer?"</I><BR/><BR/>I reject the premise of your question. I don't know that blacks experienced negative action, in real terms. Would the blacks bought by Europeans have been better off not being bought by Europeans? I honestly don't know. I think it's likely their descendants were far better off in 1870 than their counterparts back in sub-Saharan Africa. I think it's galactically obvious their descendants are far better off here today than their counterparts in Sub-Saharan Africa. <BR/><BR/>700,000 black slaves begat 30+ million black Americans (how many would exist today had their ancestors never been brought here?), for whom the narrative is now to whine about their "misfortune." Don't expect me to find this anything but odd from a strictly honest, logical standpoint. You couldn't drag more than one in a hundred thousand back to the motherland, what with all the kicking and screaming. Broaching the subject of equitable compensation (cost of repatriation) for the injury (bringing them here) is a great way to induce cries of racism.<BR/><BR/>Maybe we should do some math:<BR/><BR/>x= wealth of the average American black today.<BR/>y= wealth of the average sub-Saharan black today.<BR/><BR/>x-y=z<BR/><BR/>If Z is a negative number, then it represents what America owes American blacks.<BR/>If Z is a positive number, then it represents what American blacks owe America.<BR/><BR/>This of course is all in the spirit of indulging the idea that guilt is inhereted and whites today deserve to pay for the sins of their ancestors (in addition to suffering what the more honest, if still misguided social scientist types call "black pathology"); that people who never owned slaves should atone for the sin of slavery by giving their money to people who have never been slaves.<BR/><BR/><BR/>2<BR/><BR/>Collective guilt is obviously a double-edged sword; if whites are collectively guilty for black "failure," (to behave and perform like whites), then blacks are collectively guilty for rampant black crime and victimization of whites, yes?<BR/><BR/>Of course liberals are holding the sword (confirmation #139913 of "who? whom?") and they obviously aren't worried about anyone taking it from them, but that doesn't help when you get down here in the pit and try the same nonsense that works in the echo chamber with a captive audience.<BR/><BR/><BR/>3<BR/><BR/><I>And what if the US Govt. more than equals this inequity by selling drugs in black neighborhoods. (as per rev. Wright). Preposterous, I know!</I><BR/><BR/>Are you suggesting that the massive, involuntary wealth transfer from whites (collectively) to blacks (collectively) via tax and welfare (and "affirmative action") isn't a bad thing, because a few corrupt CIA Contra handlers rubbed elbows with and maybe protected a Nicaraguan who sold coke to black kingpins in Los Angeles?<BR/><BR/>Are you suggesting that all whites are responsible for the sins of this handful of whites? (btw, unless this handful is roping blacks and forcing them to process coke into crack, bag it up for distribution, and inhale the smoke, blacks are willing partners in this crime you seem to be pinning on all whites)<BR/><BR/><I>I would say that 300 years of forced, unpaid labor followed by another hundred years of taxation without representation would qualify as "negative action" wouldn't you?</I><BR/><BR/>I don't know. It depends on whether they would've been better off in sub-Saharan Africa. You apparently take that as a given, but I don't. How do you know they wouldn't have spent 300 years doing forced, unpaid labor in Africa, followed by another hundred years of taxation without representation? From everything I've read, the number of Africans actually <I>enslaved</I> (as opposed to purchased) by Europeans was miniscule. In other words, they'd have been slaves either way (though demand of course drives supply, but we're talking about roughly 700k people, not the 30+ million of their wildly successful descendants). Maybe they'd have wound up as slaves to Arabs, otherwise. The Arab practice was to castrate the vast majority of their male African slaves, from what I've read. Bye-bye, 30+ million descendants.<BR/><BR/>You're operating under the standard black American mental landscape of slavery. I.e., you see the whole thing through white liberal egalitarian eyes. Try seeing it from a more pragmatic perspective, say from an honest 3rd worlder's view: you're captured by an enemy (black) tribe. Fortunately, they don't kill you. Fortunately, they enslave you and !hallelujah!, they don't sell you to Arabs, but to Europeans. The Europeans are an arrogant, stuffy, inscrutable lot, but they have lots of silly ideas about conduct so they won't castrate you or bugger you. If you're bought by a Portugee or a Spaniard you'll probably be worked to death in the Caribbean or Brazil, but you get lucky and wind up in the U.S. Eventually the Europeans have a crisis of conscience or whatever and fight this massive war (no need for blacks to even start a revolt!) and the upshot is your descendants are not only freed, but gradually enfranchised into European civilization.<BR/><BR/>Now, I don't know about you, but if I'm an African sitting in chains in Tunisia in 1700, and I can somehow see all the outcomes ahead of me and my posterity, I run for the Yankee ships as fast as my skinny legs will carry me. If I'm an African sitting <I>unchained on my porch in sub-Saharan Africa</I>, I probably pack a lunch, <I>then</I> run for the ships. If I'm a mischievous bastard, I think about how my descendants can follow the gravy train around in 2000, whining their misfortune with their hands out, palms up, and I have a good laugh.<BR/><BR/><I>If you would prefer working 6 16 hour days at someone else's business to hunting, farming and fishing on your own, the answer would be 'yes'; I wouldn't.</I><BR/><BR/>Slavery is still practiced in parts of sub-Saharan Africa today. Rights are more or less down to typical tribal power struggles. Corruption is the norm. Who says you'd be fishing, farming, or hunting as a free man? Who says you'd even be alive (I say you'd almost certainly never have lived).<BR/><BR/>So, did blacks in 1870 move Heaven and Earth to get back to the motherland (sue the government, raise hell, whatever), and just fall short? Or were they so hornswoggled by then that they didn't know what they were missing? Did the effects responsible last right up to the present, or did conditions change at some point to make the U.S. more palatable to blacks than Africa? If the latter, when did this change take place?<BR/><BR/><I>Yes, and the brainpower of 40 million people forced away, followed by another 100 years of colonization and 50 years of serf-like relations with the CIA/MI-6 Bilderbergs have much to do with that.</I><BR/><BR/>But 40 million people <B>weren't</B> forced away! 700,000 were (at least to the U.S.; more went to Brazil). And fellow blacks did the forcing, not Europeans. Receiving stolen goods != burglary or robbery. C'mon, you really expect anyone here to believe that the slaves represent a brain trust that would've made a significant difference (relative to the comparative paucity vis-a-vis western civilization) to Africa's technological and cultural development? Ceteris paribus, those who wind up as slaves are likely to be less gifted, not more gifted, than the other members of their population; generally (in this context at least) slaves are the guys who lose wars.<BR/><BR/>This does raise the question of reproductive success once again, though; on average, how many surviving descendants would those 700,000 (or any given 700,000 in sub-Saharan Africa) have had in Africa? <BR/><BR/>Everybody squawks about the effects of colonialism. God forbid anyone come in and build roads, power grids, bridges, railroads, communication grids, schools, etc. God forbid anyone provide a use for that black goo under the ground and pay good money for it, show anyone how to get that shiny gold stuff out of the ground, introduce medicine and hygiene, rule of law, etc. God forbid anyone turn Rhodesia into the bread basket of Africa, or South Africa into a semblance of a first world nation. God forbid anyone dramatically increase carrying capacity, or life expectancy.<BR/><BR/>Imperialist bastards!<BR/><BR/>Face up to reality - sub-Saharan Africa was better off before the Europeans pulled out, and worse off after (though I don't mean it was a rosy picture; Belgian Congo, roads as disease vectors, etc). That's why South Africa had a hell of a time trying to keep illegal immigrants out during the Apartheid era (I recently tried to find a few crumbs of honesty about this online and actually found a piece by a leftist complaining about how whites keeping blacks <B>out</B> of SA during Apartheid was <B>racist</B>! Ha!)<BR/><BR/>(Don't get me wrong - I think colonizing sub-Saharan Africa was a huge mistake. I think bringing blacks to the U.S. was a catastrophic blunder)<BR/><BR/>Food for thought - why doesn't India look like Africa? Why didn't Europeans conquer/colonize China?<BR/><BR/>More food for thought - the evils of African Colonialism are the fault of the white man, and by extension Americans, even though America had no colonies in Africa! Polaks are to blame for Africa's condition!<BR/><BR/><I>Agreed! There are too many black people chanting 'woe is me' today. Of course there are also way to many whites arguing about 'disadvantages' when you still own 98% of everything.</I><BR/><BR/>(I should point out that I don't blame blacks for their whining, the way the chorus at Amren do. It ticks me off, but I blame white liberals for this, not blacks. The former know better (or should), which isn't true of the latter.)<BR/><BR/>Whites don't bloody well own 98% of everything. Besides, that's not the point. The point is, whites are discriminated against by the law of the land, a land their ancestors made. Blacks are discriminated against by Mother Nature (or, if you prefer, phantom white racism, which is at once pervasive, all-powerful, and unfalsifiable)<BR/><BR/>(btw, who do you think Joe Sixpack and Sally Soccermom are going to blame if they really get wind of how hard they're being screwed - regardless of the facts? Bilderbergers, the liberal elite, or blacks? I think it's in the interests of smart, forward-thinking blacks to at least <I>try</I> to nip this thing in the bud before pitchfork-torch-noose time...don't you?)<BR/><BR/><I>x= number of long term wealthy families in America<BR/>y= number of long term wealthy families in America, had they paid wages to their slaves.<BR/><BR/>I would say that x>y.</I><BR/><BR/>Hey, I'll buy that. What's your point? The point of my math is that the "grievous injury" blacks are metaphorically suing for is actually a great boon, and if anything they owe whites, not the other way around. You seem to be saying that a few whites benefitted in the process; true, but overall whites have gotten the short end, and blacks the long end.<BR/><BR/><I>I don't think any white should have to pay for the sins of his ancestors. Do you think that I should have to pay for the sins of OJ Simpson, Tookie Smith or Willie Horton. I'm not even related to them.</I><BR/><BR/>Fair enough. But you did write:<BR/><BR/><I>40 years of "affirmative action" to counteract 300 of "negative action" would be considered a "wealth transfer?"</I><BR/><BR/>Which implies that the wealth transfer from whites (collectively) to blacks (collectively) is okay because whites did blacks wrong in the past.<BR/><BR/>Ethnic Nationalism aside, what do you say to people who see this massive collective tax-and-spend process, from one race to another, and say, "man, there's just something really wrong with that"? I mean, how can one call the things done to blacks "racism," but not call this process "racism" as well?<BR/><BR/>Why does "disparate impact" stop applying the second it starts helping blacks and harming whites?<BR/><BR/><I>What qualifies as pathology? Would that be the 561 whites (including Arabs and Asians) killed by blacks in America last year...<BR/><BR/>http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_05.html<BR/><BR/>...or the 100,000 Arabs killed by whites in in Afghanistan and Iraq.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't know; I put it in scare-quotes because I think it's bunk. But, I <I>suspect</I> that with the way psychology works, both, but the former more than the latter (e.g., gutting a man like a fish with a bowie knife and eating his liver is far less objectively evil than pressing a button and killing a million people on a planet in the Ford galaxy, but it's probably more pathological)<BR/><BR/><BR/>"that people who never owned slaves should atone for the sin of slavery by giving their money to people who have never been slaves."<BR/><BR/><I>My personal idea for reparations is that every black American who can trace his heritage here before 1960 should be given a 30 day all expense paid trip around the continent of Africa, followed by a check for 30 days of salary, whatever he makes. Once returning to the US, he should receive a state department packet with instructions on how to expatriate to an African country should he desire, taking a lump sum of his social security benefits with him. I do not believe on people getting money for nothing. It would solve no problem.</I><BR/><BR/>Not bad! I prefer the plan I imply above; present complainant blacks (who meet ancestry requirements) with a bill for the extravagant wealth they enjoy due to their presence amid evil whites, plus a receipt showing how much largesse they've received directly from white taxpayers (I remember reading somewhere that the average amount of white taxpayer money on blacks over their lifetimes is ironically quite close to the number per black suggested by reparations-jockeys as compensation).<BR/><BR/><I>I also believe that part of this should be full disclosure on US government involvement with CIA enter-city drug dealing and creation of the AIDS disease as a stone-age biological weapon which it was.</I><BR/><BR/>(The Rev comes out of the closet and you think the time is right to do the same?)<BR/><BR/>Okay, you've got the Blandon-Ross thing, with the CIA looking the other way, and maybe protecting them from the government. Do you have any evidence that it's something systemic? That more than a handful of people in the government were in on it?<BR/><BR/><I>Do you agree? or do you believe that people have sex with chimps?</I><BR/><BR/>I reject the either-or premise of your question (though I wouldn't rule out people having sex with chimps; stranger things have happened). The most plausible explanation I've read for the presumed jump of AIDS from simian to human is the eating of bush meat (the active ingredient perhaps being a bugger who ate bush meat, if we want to get really precise).<BR/><BR/><I>"if whites are collectively guilty for black "failure," (to behave and perform like whites), then blacks are collectively guilty for rampant black crime and victimization of whites, yes?"</I><BR/><BR/><I>Whites are not collectively guilty for black failure, whites are partially guilty for black failure. Blacks are also partially guilty for black failure as is timing.</I><BR/><BR/>It seems you're stating that the collective guilt of whites is only a partial cause of "black failure," but that the guilt is indeed collective.<BR/><BR/>So, my six year old niece is guilty of causing "black failure"? My eleven year old nephew? My posterity, too?<BR/><BR/>I'm guilty of causinig black failure? My mother too? My sister?<BR/><BR/>Please tell me what I, my mother, my sister, my nephew, and my niece have done to (help) cause "black failure." Please tell me what my posterity will (inevitably!) do to bring this (partial) guilt upon themselves. This I'd really like to know.<BR/><BR/>Food for thought: if whites are collectively guilty, doesn't that pave the way for whites to be collectively other things, too? Like collectively interested in one another's well-being, collectively interested in their own future and living space, etc? If whites are to be collectively guilty, doesn't that mean they're a people, and not a bunch of atomized individuals? Is this the can of worms liberals want opened?<BR/><BR/><I>The English have been neighbors with the Irish and the Scotts since the Roman empire, yet the two latter groups have been abject failures in comparison for 1700 years until the creation of the worlds largest affirmative action system (The E.U.) Are the geneticly inferior?</I><BR/><BR/>It seems likely that the Irish are somewhat less intelligent and capable than the English. I dunno about the Scots.<BR/><BR/>But, the Irish and Scots have shown an ability to get their acts together. Blacks have not. More to the point (and perhaps unfairly expanding the conversation), I don't care if blacks are all genius PHDs. I like who I am, I like my ethnic/racial group the way it is, and I want it to at least have the option of growing and preserving itself in its own mental and physical space.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-28221542578120629902008-04-28T19:29:00.000-07:002008-04-28T19:29:00.000-07:00"Hey "Truth", those are some pretty big claims. Ca..."Hey "Truth", those are some pretty big claims. Can you give us some references? Tell us who your sources are."<BR/><BR/>http://www.illuminati-news.com/Articles/166.htmlTruthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17286755693955361308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-61556382751570590082008-04-28T19:10:00.000-07:002008-04-28T19:10:00.000-07:00"if whites are collectively guilty for black "fail..."if whites are collectively guilty for black "failure," (to behave and perform like whites), then blacks are collectively guilty for rampant black crime and victimization of whites, yes?"<BR/><BR/>Whites are not collectively guilty for black failure, whites are partially guilty for black failure. Blacks are also partially guilty for black failure as is timing. <BR/><BR/>The English have been neighbors with the Irish and the Scotts since the Roman empire, yet the two latter groups have been abject failures in comparison for 1700 years until the creation of the worlds largest affirmative action system (The E.U.) Are the geneticly inferior?Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17286755693955361308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-10964496616814876672008-04-28T16:54:00.000-07:002008-04-28T16:54:00.000-07:00"(It doesn't take a genius to figure out there's a..."(It doesn't take a genius to figure out there's a white-to-black wealth transfer going on via welfare when blacks generate almost as many recipients as whites with roughly 1/6th the population)"<BR/><BR/>And what if the US Govt. more than equals this inequity by selling drugs in black neighborhoods. (as per rev. Wright). Preposterous, I know!<BR/><BR/>http://www.finalcall.com/features/cia-pawn.html<BR/><BR/>"I reject the premise of your question. I don't know that blacks experienced negative action, in real terms."<BR/><BR/>I would say that 300 years of forced, unpaid labor followed by another hundred years of taxation without representation would qualify as "negative action" wouldn't you?<BR/><BR/>"I think it's likely their descendants were far better off in 1870"<BR/>If you would prefer working 6 16 hour days at someone else's business to hunting, farming and fishing on your own, the answer would be 'yes'; I wouldn't.<BR/><BR/>" I think it's galactically obvious their descendants are far better off here today than their counterparts in Sub-Saharan Africa."<BR/><BR/>Yes, and the brainpower of 40 million people forced away, followed by another 100 years of colonization and 50 years of serf-like relations with the CIA/MI-6 Bilderbergs have much to do with that. <BR/><BR/>"for whom the narrative is now to whine about their "misfortune." <BR/><BR/>Agreed! There are too many black people chanting 'woe is me' today. Of course there are also way to many whites arguing about 'disadvantages' when you still own 98% of everything.<BR/><BR/>"Maybe we should do some math:"<BR/><BR/>Here's more math. <BR/><BR/>x= number of long term wealthy families in America<BR/>y= number of long term wealthy families in America, had they paid wages to their slaves. <BR/><BR/>I would say that x>y.<BR/><BR/>"This of course is all in the spirit of indulging the idea that guilt is inhereted and whites today deserve to pay for the sins of their ancestors"<BR/><BR/>I don't think any white should have to pay for the sins of his ancestors. Do you think that I should have to pay for the sins of OJ Simpson, Tookie Smith or Willie Horton. I'm not even related to them.<BR/><BR/>" (in addition to suffering what the more honest, if still misguided social scientist types call "black pathology")"<BR/><BR/>What qualifies as pathology? Would that be the 561 whites (including Arabs and Asians) killed by blacks in America last year...<BR/><BR/>http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_05.html<BR/><BR/>...or the 100,000 Arabs killed by whites in in Afghanistan and Iraq.<BR/><BR/>"that people who never owned slaves should atone for the sin of slavery by giving their money to people who have never been slaves."<BR/><BR/>My personal idea for reparations is that every black American who can trace his heritage here before 1960 should be given a 30 day all expense paid trip around the continent of Africa, followed by a check for 30 days of salary, whatever he makes. Once returning to the US, he should receive a state department packet with instructions on how to expatriate to an African country should he desire, taking a lump sum of his social security benefits with him. I do not believe on people getting money for nothing. It would solve no problem. <BR/><BR/>I also believe that part of this should be full disclosure on US government involvement with CIA enter-city drug dealing and creation of the AIDS disease as a stone-age biological weapon which it was. Do you agree? or do you believe that people have sex with chimps?Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17286755693955361308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-62249015040935486422008-04-28T16:36:00.000-07:002008-04-28T16:36:00.000-07:00Collective guilt is obviously a double-edged sword...Collective guilt is obviously a double-edged sword; if whites are collectively guilty for black "failure," (to behave and perform like whites), then blacks are collectively guilty for rampant black crime and victimization of whites, yes?<BR/><BR/>Of course liberals are holding the sword (confirmation #139913 of "who? whom?") and they obviously aren't worried about anyone taking it from them, but that doesn't help when you get down here in the pit and try the same nonsense that works in the echo chamber with a captive audience.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-29106824844979809222008-04-28T04:39:00.000-07:002008-04-28T04:39:00.000-07:00Apparently not if you read the corresponding artic...<I>Apparently not if you read the corresponding article to this thread.</I><BR/><BR/>What, the link titled "Welfare Fraud"? I just glanced at the headlines but it looks parochial.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.success-and-culture.net/articles/recip.shtml" REL="nofollow">The Recipient Class</A><BR/><BR/>(It doesn't take a genius to figure out there's a white-to-black wealth transfer going on via welfare when blacks generate almost as many recipients as whites with roughly 1/6th the population)<BR/><BR/><I>40 years of "affirmative action" to counteract 300 of "negative action" would be considered a "wealth transfer?"</I><BR/><BR/>I reject the premise of your question. I don't know that blacks experienced negative action, in real terms. Would the blacks bought by Europeans have been better off not being bought by Europeans? I honestly don't know. I think it's likely their descendants were far better off in 1870 than their counterparts back in sub-Saharan Africa. I think it's galactically obvious their descendants are far better off here today than their counterparts in Sub-Saharan Africa. <BR/><BR/>700,000 black slaves begat 30+ million black Americans (how many would exist today had their ancestors never been brought here?), for whom the narrative is now to whine about their "misfortune." Don't expect me to find this anything but odd from a strictly honest, logical standpoint. You couldn't drag more than one in a hundred thousand back to the motherland, what with all the kicking and screaming. Broaching the subject of equitable compensation (cost of repatriation) for the injury (bringing them here) is a great way to induce cries of racism.<BR/><BR/>Maybe we should do some math:<BR/><BR/>x= wealth of the average American black today.<BR/>y= wealth of the average sub-Saharan black today.<BR/><BR/>x-y=z<BR/><BR/>If Z is a negative number, then it represents what America owes American blacks.<BR/>If Z is a positive number, then it represents what American blacks owe America.<BR/><BR/>This of course is all in the spirit of indulging the idea that guilt is inhereted and whites today deserve to pay for the sins of their ancestors (in addition to suffering what the more honest, if still misguided social scientist types call "black pathology"); that people who never owned slaves should atone for the sin of slavery by giving their money to people who have never been slaves.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-4984772361650353302008-04-25T23:42:00.000-07:002008-04-25T23:42:00.000-07:00Hey "Truth", those are some pretty big claims. Ca...Hey "Truth", those are some pretty big claims. Can you give us some references? Tell us who your sources are.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-28844360921241933222008-04-25T22:05:00.000-07:002008-04-25T22:05:00.000-07:00Now, even though at first you talk about deadbeat ...<I>Now, even though at first you talk about deadbeat dads (there are just cases where the father has fled the coop), your statement in the next paragraph is phrased as if the woman is to blame (that'll leave [these women] with less time to reproduce.).</I><BR/><BR/>Usually both are responsible. Yes, the man has fled the coop, but the women often knew what type of men they were getting to begin with. My statements are by know means contradictory.<BR/><BR/>I'm for some limited amount of welfare for those families that need it. But at the same time we need to avoid becomign an enabler of bad behavior. We better be extracting blood from delliquent fathers before we're distracting it from law-abiding taxpayers.<BR/><BR/><I>Look at South Africa. Only 4 mio. whites left to feed and fund the 40 million blacks.</I><BR/><BR/>40 million blacks now? Really??? Good god, you're right. It's scary because I can still remember an old Robin Williams joke from just 20 years ago: "Look, there are 4 million white people in this country and 17 million black people. Does the name Custer mean anything to you?"<BR/><BR/>From 17 million to 40 million in just 20 years. And people think we're all just paranoid.<BR/><BR/><I>The point is to breed. We can fiddle with the choreography after we have assembled the cast.</I><BR/><BR/>Indeed. We pay a lot of attention to politics, but as Stephen Covey pointed out, what really matters is what's inside your circle of control. Politics, fr the most part, for most of us, lies outside of it. Our time spent watching TV or surfing the Net would be better spent raising an extra child or two. Our families are within our circle of control (unless they're teenagers). Adopting a positive culture is within our circle of control. Worrying about whether McCain or Obama wins is almost completely outside of it.<BR/><BR/>Even if I could much affect the outcome, I wouldn't know which outcome to affect. I sometimes think an Obama presidency would be better for conservatism than a McCain one would.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-57752479905155285312008-04-25T16:29:00.000-07:002008-04-25T16:29:00.000-07:00"don't want to rain on your parade, but welfare is..."don't want to rain on your parade, but welfare is a massive wealth transfer from whites to Negroes."<BR/><BR/>Apparently not if you read the corresponding article to this thread.<BR/><BR/>"Same goes for "affirmative action."<BR/><BR/>40 years of "affirmative action" to counteract 300 of "negative action" would be considered a "wealth transfer?"<BR/><BR/>And Anonymous, our real enemy are American descendants of European royal families who consider themselves a separate class and use the media, the American industrial complex and the lawmakers to "encourage" you to look down upon other people who are as broke as you are. They also encourage you to be materialistic, force confirming education down your throat, get you hooked upon all kinds of legal and illegal drugs, deflate the value of your money, cause dissension and encourage prison growth year after year, after year. <BR/><BR/>The same people who have pushed the industry out of the United States, allowed rampant immigration, as well as very shortly coming US food shortages, a %200 increase in the price of gas (as well as natural gas) by the end of the year, fluoridated your water and and distracted you from all of this with Monday Night Football, American Idol and big angry 7'0 negros with guns. <BR/><BR/>You people had better wake up!Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17286755693955361308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-10278842367216606712008-04-25T10:53:00.000-07:002008-04-25T10:53:00.000-07:00jmr saideventually the mainstream will disappear a...jmr said<BR/><BR/><I>eventually the mainstream will disappear and flds will be the majority. But then who will support flds?</I><BR/><BR/>I wouldn't worry about FLDS taking over the planet.<BR/><BR/>Besides, as William thoughtfully pointed out, <I>there seems to be no shortage of men in these communities who know how to run a successful enterprise</I>. Contrast with the new farmers of Zimbabwe.<BR/><BR/>The point is to breed. We can fiddle with the choreography after we have assembled the cast.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-41792638507703553312008-04-25T10:45:00.000-07:002008-04-25T10:45:00.000-07:00David asks what about the nuclear family caused it...David asks what about the nuclear family caused it to disintegrate.<BR/><BR/>Funny, it lasted from around 1000 AD to around 1965 or so. What oh what happened to change everything?<BR/><BR/>The Pill. The Condom. Better economic conditions for women. IRAN has a fertility rate of 1.7 and last time I checked their welfare state is nothing like the US (though they do have one) and it frowns on single motherhood ala South Central or the British White underclass.<BR/><BR/>You can eliminate the Welfare System as much as you want, as long as women have good economic opportunities They will choose the men they choose. Three different kids by three different fathers, all various degrees of thugs.<BR/><BR/>Only when social norms discourage this (upper-middle class, educated, disapproval by friends and family of that sort of behavior, marking one as "stupid" and so on) will you see it pushed down. Even there, hip-single-motherhood is celebrated. Just read the NYT.<BR/><BR/>What matters is the culture. We got rid of Christian social norms disapproving of single motherhood and women, mostly hard-wired for the most dominant social man, choose just those sort of guys, who don't stick around. Our future generations will have plenty of thugs, very few engineers or scientists. Because guys like that don't reproduce much.<BR/><BR/>"truth" if you added up the real not "reported" fantasy budget of China or India or Russia, the US would spend about as much as they do in fiscal terms. We spend fairly little (around 4% of GDP) compared to historic norms (around 7-8% of GDP in the 1980's). If anything we spend too little on the Military, which tends to be anti-recessionary and keeps engineers and skilled labor around and employed, and too much on fairly useless social spending. Most of the block grants for welfare for example goes into building mansions for guys like Wright.<BR/><BR/>Submarines, Aircraft Carriers, heavy airlift capacity, air tankers, Special Forces, new weapons systems like connected UAVs, MRAPs, etc. cost money. You can't just go and buy them when you need them, and they are very useful when you need to change someone's behavior. For a lotta people it's the only proven way to get their attention.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-54524227923175248162008-04-25T09:13:00.000-07:002008-04-25T09:13:00.000-07:00jmr: Long term, the problem is that these flds peo...<B>jmr:</B> <I>Long term, the problem is that these flds people are multiplying like rabbits while mainstream whites have a birthrate that is below replacement. Which means that eventually the mainstream will disappear and flds will be the majority. But then who will support flds? Something will crash before that point is reached.</I><BR/><BR/>In terms of the epic, unsustainable Ponzi scheme of our impending demographic doom, the FLDS don't even amount to small fish in a big pond [frankly, they're not even minnows in an ocean].<BR/><BR/>Circa 2020, the United States will have either become a Stalinist/Maoist command economy, or the nation will have been rendered asunder by some sort of a [sucessful] secessionist movement.<BR/><BR/>I've been trying to imagine other scenarios - for instance, there could be a failed secessionist movement which is quashed by the Stalinists - but, in purely mathematical terms, the thing cannot be resolved peaceably, and will necessarily require the society [to include both its economy and its politics] to evolve [or, what is probably more likely, to <I>devolve</I>] into something radically different from what it is now.<BR/><BR/>On the one hand, young, productive Caucasians will have to support a massive demographic tidal wave of old, unproductive Baby Boomer Caucasians, who, in a demographic blink of an eye, will be transformed from massive tax-producers [to the tune of many tens of thousands of dollars per tax-producer per year] into massive tax-consumers [to the tune of many tens of thousands of dollars per tax-consumer per year], and, on the other hand, young, productive Caucasians will also have to come up with the funds to subsidize the massive demographic tidal wave of third-world dead weight which is inherently incapable of ever being a tax-producing citizenry in the first place.<BR/><BR/>Either of these trends - dysgenic fertility on the one hand, or the subsidization of the retirements of the Caucasian Baby Boomers on the other - would be disastrous in and of themselves.<BR/><BR/>But, in tandem, they amount to socio-political armageddon:<BR/><BR/><B>Senior benefit costs rise 24% since 2000</B><BR/><A HREF="http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-02-13-seniors_N.htm" REL="nofollow">usatoday.com</A><BR/><BR/><I>The cost of government benefits for seniors soared to a record </I><B>$27,289</B><I> per senior in 2007, according to a USA TODAY analysis...</I><BR/><BR/><B>The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to the U.S. Taxpayer</B><BR/><A HREF="http://www.heritage.org/research/immigration/SR14es.cfm" REL="nofollow">heritage.org</A><BR/><BR/><I>...When the costs of direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services are counted, the average low-skill household had a fiscal deficit of </I><B>$19,588</B><I> (expenditures of $30,160 minus $10,573 in taxes)...</I><BR/><BR/><B>Of U.S. Children Under 5, Nearly Half Are Minorities</B><BR/><A HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/09/AR2006050901841.html" REL="nofollow">washingtonpost.com</A><BR/><BR/><I>...Forty-five percent of U.S. children younger than 5 are minorities...</I><BR/><BR/><B>Statistical Abstract of the United States</B><BR/>Section 1, Population<BR/>[see especially Table 8 & Table 9, pages 11-13]<BR/><A HREF="http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/08abstract/pop.pdf" REL="nofollow">PDF FILE: pop.pdf</A><BR/><A HREF="http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w146/luciusvorenusfreeper/pop_2008_table_8_caucasian_LARGE.jpg" REL="nofollow">JPEG IMAGE: Table 8, page 11</A><BR/><BR/><BR/>PS: I wish that the Blogspot software package allowed me to post images - if you click on that last JPEG, then you'll see how the absolute numbers of Caucasians in this country has collapsed, from about 16 million in the 45-49 age group [at the tail end of the Baby Boom, right before the introduction & decriminalization of chemical abortifacients & surgical abortion, in the early 1960's], to a mere 11 million in both the 0-4 age group and the 5-9 age group [born during late Clinton & early Bush II].<BR/><BR/>PPS: If you think the housing market is in dire straights right now, then wait until you see what happens when those 16 million Caucasian Boomers get into their late sixties and early seventies, and try to cash out of their palatial mansions and into cozy little condos in the retirement communities of Florida/Arizona/SoCal.<BR/><BR/>They're going to be in for a very rude introduction to the fact that a fraction with a numerator of 16 and a denominator of 11 is what the mathematicians call "A Buyer's Market".<BR/><BR/>Of course, by that time, President Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama will long since have outlawed the possession [hell, probably the very <I>idea</I>] of private property, so it will all be a moot point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-75391026875377265582008-04-25T09:10:00.000-07:002008-04-25T09:10:00.000-07:00Uh, I don't know, for the same reason we do it for...<I>Uh, I don't know, for the same reason we do it for Poor White Trash (no offense) in Maine, West Virginia, Kentucky and Utah?</I><BR/><BR/>I don't want to rain on your parade, but welfare is a massive wealth transfer from whites to negros (no offense). Same goes for "affirmative action."<BR/><BR/>This is without discussing the obvious Ethnic Genetic Interest motives involved, which are a hell of a lot stronger for white-white transfers than for white-negro (no offense) transfers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-62405601999827322122008-04-25T08:06:00.000-07:002008-04-25T08:06:00.000-07:00truth: Because "you" allow it. And why do "you" al...<B>truth:</B> <I>Because "you" allow it. And why do "you" allow it? Because, with all possible respect, you have had your cherry-sized brain turned inside out by so many years of propaganda that you can't see who your real enemy is!</I><BR/><BR/>Okay, I'll bite: Who is our real enemy?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-71698420580325056222008-04-25T06:12:00.000-07:002008-04-25T06:12:00.000-07:00I think anyone looking at theFLDS groups reasonabl...I think anyone looking at the<BR/>FLDS groups reasonable can <BR/>take away the conclusion that these<BR/>people can be quite productive.<BR/><BR/>As for scheming and scamming, plenty<BR/>of ethnic groups do that. The<BR/>difference with the FLDS groups<BR/>is that they build real things<BR/>with real world skills.<BR/><BR/>Also, they are propogating a gene<BR/>pool that is familiar to the <BR/>majority of Americans (rather than<BR/>Alien).<BR/><BR/>Only smoke and mirrors and brainwashing can make a reasonable<BR/>white man believe otherwise.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-71915879167062576162008-04-25T05:34:00.000-07:002008-04-25T05:34:00.000-07:00" jmr said...But then who will support flds? Somet..." jmr said...<BR/>But then who will support flds? Something will crash before that point is reached."<BR/><BR/>Look at South Africa. Only 4 mio. whites left to feed and fund the 40 million blacks. And the black regime just keeps screwing up the tax, trying to bleed the whites dry. As long as the whites are allowed to own their own businesses, they are willing to put up with this nonsense and even accept the sloth, corruption, crime and incompetence of their fellow blacks and the government. They really have no choice short of emigration since the regime and its goons will simply crush any resistance to this model of parasitic taxing. <BR/><BR/>This thing only collapses when the blacks' greed outstrips even the most basic logic and they confiscate the means of production, like they did in Zimbabwe. Then the economy finally collapses and the whites are forced to emigrate. So that is your turning point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-37968938525936940202008-04-25T04:37:00.000-07:002008-04-25T04:37:00.000-07:00If you yank away the food stamps, or put a time li...<I>If you yank away the food stamps, or put a time limit on them, as with AFDC, then you'll force these women to actually work for a living, and that'll leave them with less time to reproduce.</I> I take issue with this statement. I would not support any policy that would take away welfare payments from single mothers with young children. Case in point: I knew a woman whose husband walked out on her several years after she had her second child. She lost her main source of income and had to take a job paying $8 per hour. Mostly, her job coincided with school hours, but this left the kids alone for most of the day during summer and school vacations. So she relied on various relatives and babysitters, including me, but not, of course, including her ex-husband. And sometimes there was nobody available, so she just had to leave a 10 year old to take care of a 5 year old all day long in a tiny $250 apartment while other kids their age were out having fun. She was very defensive of her decision to work, and got mad at me once when I naively expressed that I bet she wished she could stay home with her kids all the time. But while it's true she was able to bring home a few bucks each week that she wouldn't have had if she had relied on child support alone, I strongly feel that it was the wrong decision for her children and that the change in her kids' behavior was making her have second thoughts herself.<BR/><BR/>I also knew a single mother of six. This woman simply had no choice but to stay home. Her family was much poorer than the other family, but at least the kids had a parent to come home to each day. Would you tell her to get a job? You may think I'm bringing up extreme cases, but single motherhood is quite common and so are large families. I'm a conservative who puts children's interests before economics, and for that reason I believe that we should enable single mothers to stay home and raise their children without having to beg friends for money or take a job and leave their kids to get along by themselves. <BR/><BR/>Now, even though at first you talk about deadbeat dads (<I>there are just cases where the father has fled the coop</I>), your statement in the next paragraph is phrased as if the woman is to blame (<I>that'll leave [these women] with less time to reproduce.</I>). Are you now addressing women who choose to have children while single, rather than women who get divorced (willingly or otherwise) <I>after</I> they have kids? I haven't met many women who desire children but don't want a husband, but I am young and may be wrong. But even if you show me a woman who has kids and then walks out and refuses to marry the father, I don't believe that the morality of her actions should come into play when it's her children whose interests are at stake. <BR/><BR/>to jmr: The FLDS is a tiny minority of Mormons, having at most about 20000 members worldwide. I dont think they're ever going to get to as much as 1% of the Mormon population, let alone the US population as a whole.Stopped Clockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18155709284859187212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-81626165558759304582008-04-25T04:25:00.000-07:002008-04-25T04:25:00.000-07:00Ideally we would all live in a community of atheis...<I>Ideally we would all live in a community of atheists...</I><BR/><BR/>Speak for yourself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-74573706019775987222008-04-24T23:26:00.000-07:002008-04-24T23:26:00.000-07:00Long term, the problem is that these flds people a...Long term, the problem is that these flds people are multiplying like rabbits while mainstream whites have a birthrate that is below replacement. Which means that eventually the mainstream will disappear and flds will be the majority. But then who will support flds? Something will crash before that point is reached.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-73279235263866542162008-04-24T22:34:00.000-07:002008-04-24T22:34:00.000-07:00"Why do we give black women welfare instead of let..."Why do we give black women welfare instead of letting them and their children starve?"<BR/><BR/>Uh, I don't know, for the same reason we do it for Poor White Trash (no offense) in Maine, West Virginia, Kentucky and Utah?<BR/><BR/>"We" don't give anyone welfare. "We" pay taxes of which "your" elected lawmakers divide amongst a lot of bad programs. A military budget that excedes that of every other nation in the world combined. Billion dollar a day wars that make the president and his family wealthy beyond all recognition, A social security system for people who retire 20 years before they die, corporate buyouts for stupid Wall Street millionaires, etc. <BR/><BR/>The question "why" can be answered quite simply:<BR/><BR/>Because "you" allow it. And why do "you" allow it? Because, with all possible respect, you have had your cherry-sized brain turned inside out by so many years of propaganda that you can't see who your real enemy is!<BR/><BR/>I hope that answers your question.Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17286755693955361308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-73367405698607350002008-04-24T20:31:00.000-07:002008-04-24T20:31:00.000-07:00(By the way, I would rather live under FDLS than i...<I>(By the way, I would rather live under FDLS than in a barrio. FDLS people are bright, well-groomed, modest in comportment, and dress very well...</I><BR/><BR/>Don't know about them dressing very well, but there seems to be no shortage of men in these communities who know how to run a successful enterprise - even in an honest setting.<BR/><BR/><I>Is the nuclear family, operating under global "capitalism"...good for White birthrates?</I><BR/><BR/>Some aspects of American culture are going to have to change. When I graduated college, moving out and getting your own place was the hip thing to do. All my friends did it (most had moved out while in college). I lived with my parents for 3 years after and saved enough to put up a hefty down payment on a house.<BR/><BR/>Those economic choices are going to become more common inthe US. Frugality will get hip again. That will have positive effects on birth rates.<BR/><BR/>I think what's bad for white birthrates isn't the nuclear family, per se, but white mobility in general. People move around the country just to move around. It's a lot easier to raise more kids when you have a support structure in place - siblings or parents or fellow churchgoers who can help you look after the kids. I think it's the support structure as much as the religion itself that explains why religious people have larger families - they do so not only because they want to, but because they can.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>I'm not sure what you mean here. Single mothers with children? I assure you not everyone on food stamps is of this type, and if I was in control I wouldnt attempt to cut back on food stamps at all.</I><BR/><BR/>I must've missed the story where asexual reproduction became possible in the human species. There aren't really any single mothers - there are just cases where the father has fled the coop. We need to find ways to avoid subsidizing this sort of behavior. We do it in a slanted way when we jail them for other crimes, and thus keep them from breeding.<BR/><BR/>If you yank away the food stamps, or put a time limit on them, as with AFDC, then you'll force these women to actually work for a living, and that'll leave them with less time to reproduce.<BR/><BR/>YES, I do find it offensive that we unquestionably subsidize bad behavior by blacks and Hispanics, but not that of whites.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-89508458284643041132008-04-24T19:45:00.000-07:002008-04-24T19:45:00.000-07:00Yeah right. Take babies away from mothers. That sh...Yeah right. Take babies away from mothers. That should encourage them to go elsewhere.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com